If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Django Unchained ​- I think this is the most normal film Quinten Tarintino has made, not much filminess except for the usual Spagetti Western signifiers here and there which are just there. I think its a lot better paced then Inglorious Basterds I wasn't left bored halfway through wanting something to happen. Though lots of scenes could have been trimmed down a lot since it was like "yes I get the point now hurry up to the thing I know is going to happen. The dialogue or monologuing as I think it is is very good and definitely adds to people's character but I wish there was a bit more entertaining interplay like in Pulp Fiction, Waltz steals the show but there definitely is a missed opportunity of having them have entertaining banter since what little is there is very good. Also I really think that he definitly put slavery into a sickening light since the violence on the slaves was very brutal and was very upsetting. also Samuel L Jackson is great and a little bit different in this movie, and the Cane drop is probably one of the most Bad Ass things I saw in the movie.

I didn't have a problem with The Australian accent Quinten was doing though I can understand why people would and be a bit like What is he doing.

Life of Pi - Pretty gorgeous film it is probably one of the most beautiful films i have seen in a long while. Also the story is very engaging with a very likeable lead in Pi in all ages of him and his story is pretty epic with a lot of emotion to it. Its definitely got some strangeness to it and it has lots of depth talking about the true nature of animals and god and religion in quite a good manner I thought. Even though you could say the ending is a little pat with its message I actually think its quite true and you don't really have to see it as God in the religious sense just in a story sense since I think the film is also somewhat about storytelling so God could literally be the Author. Very Recommended and probably the best CGI I think i've seen.

Holy shit. Skyfall losing Best Cinematography was appalling. Cinematography is a moot point in a film that's 90% CGI anyways, and they handed Life of Pi best Visual Effects anyways (which it probably deserved.) You can't have it both ways, though.

Argo was a middle-of-the-road thriller that I can't for the life of me see the case for. I almost feel like it got chosen specifically so Lincoln wouldn't and to prevent back-to-back for Bigelow. (I haven't seen ZDT so I won't comment too much there)

Paul Thomas Anderson got screwed out of Best Director again, but at this point it's obvious that he's far more interested in being avant-garde and original than pandering to the Academy. The performances he pulled out of Joaquin and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were unbelievable. On that note...

Daniel Day-Lewis never really stood a chance of losing this, but Christoph Waltz was not in a supporting role. He co-billed with Jamie Foxx. It wasn't fair to him (not that he's complaining at this point), and it wasn't fair to the other nominees. And besides, he played a caricature. Hoffman and Phoenix embodied their roles to the same degree as Day-Lewis, and did so with far more challenging material than a universally-loved and revered president with a well-documented life.

I don't really have a dog in the rest of the categories. Good on Sugar Man and Adele.

Holy shit. Skyfall losing Best Cinematography was appalling. Cinematography is a moot point in a film that's 90% CGI anyways, and they handed Life of Pi best Visual Effects anyways (which it probably deserved.) You can't have it both ways, though

Holy shit. Skyfall losing Best Cinematography was appalling. Cinematography is a moot point in a film that's 90% CGI anyways, and they handed Life of Pi best Visual Effects anyways (which it probably deserved.) You can't have it both ways, though.

Cinematographers have the same job regardless of how much CGI is in a movie. New tools and new techniques don't make their work obsolete. If I'm not mistaken the jobs of cinematographers and camera operators were born because the tools and methods became too many and too complex for the directors to work alone.

There's a far fucking cry between selecting the correct depth of field, film stock, lens, filters, lighting, framing and camera placement and making pretties with a green screen. And there's a reason animated films don't get nominated for Best Cinematography, but I don't think the Academy remembers it.

You have to do all that but its virtual also the same rules of composition apply which are hard to master. Also Life Of Pi definitly deserves it as I said that is one beutiful film and the shots in that look like paintings. The cinematography of Skyfall is nice but not groundbreaking or even that beutiful. I was scared Les Mis was going to get it.

I hesitate to talk about permanence, but I'd wager that in 20 years Django, Skyfall, The Master, Holy Motors and The Raid are going to be the movies we're still talking about. Nobody gives a shit about The Hours or The English Patient or The King's Speech anymore, and I think Argo,Silver Linings Playbook and especially Les Misérables are going to suffer the same fate. The cracks were already showing through Life of Pi's CG, and time is only going to exacerbate that. Zero Dark Thirty is notable in that it's an incredibly compelling film that I think is going to look naïvewhen the files are released.

I am glad ZD30 didn't get an Oscar. As a film I didn't think it was anything special and the way it handled it's subject was bad to say the least. I really don't understand those 'strong women' comments either, so a female torturer is a strong woman but a male one is just a torturer? No comments either on the lack of questioning of the necessity of OBL's execution... Subtle propaganda is the worst kind.

I m quite glad Argo won one though. They could have gone with something filled with propaganda but they managed to tread a fine line I think and make a decent film. I used to hate Affleck before he became a director but since his first film he directs solid, quality films.

Life of Pi looked nice but I found the story as boring as the book, which I never finished...

I m quite glad Argo won one though. They could have gone with something filled with propaganda but they managed to tread a fine line I think and make a decent film. I used to hate Affleck before he became a director but since his first film he directs solid, quality films.

You're fucking kidding me right? The whole film is US = great (esp Hollywood) Iran = bad (despite the fact the US installed the Shah in the first place), and lets not forget the will they/won't they make it contrivance at the end (just in the nick of time), or Ben Affleck casting himself as a Mexican just because..... At least with TDZ they don't paint themselves out to be whiter than white.

@Sabrage

You really think Skyfall is that good? I enjoyed it, but given Bond manages to break into Ms house early on it does kind of make you wonder why Silva bothered with the costly hi-jinks (after all it's not like he's attempting world domination or anything). Better than Quality of Sausages for sure, but not as good as Casino Royale in my view. Empty train (bar driver) during the day was kind of hinky as well.

I hesitate to talk about permanence, but I'd wager that in 20 years Django, Skyfall, The Master, Holy Motors and The Raid are going to be the movies we're still talking about. Nobody gives a shit about The Hours or The English Patient or The King's Speech anymore, and I think Argo,Silver Linings Playbook and especially Les Misérables are going to suffer the same fate. The cracks were already showing through Life of Pi's CG, and time is only going to exacerbate that. Zero Dark Thirty is notable in that it's an incredibly compelling film that I think is going to look naïvewhen the files are released.

This is why I don't pay any attention to the Oscars. Nobody has mentioned The Kings Speech in the last year except for it being mentioned with relation to the Oscars. The only reason anyone is talking about it now is because the same director did Les Mis.

There's so many much better movies out there that never even get a look in by the Academy just because of their genre. The Avengers may have made a billion million dollars and done wonders for the industry, but god forbid we even suggest to give anyone attached to that even a mention.

I read somewhere on another site about how the year Titanic came out and actually got nominated for Oscars was the highest watched Oscars to date, with the author simply stating "Funny enough when you nominate a movie that every one has actually seen, you get more people watching your award show". I'm not about to suggest the awards should be a popularity contest, but they really do just go for bait movies year after year. If you want an Oscar, do a period piece and release it after September. Bonus points for getting a character actor to play the role he's really good at playing.

You're fucking kidding me right? The whole film is US = great (esp Hollywood) Iran = bad (despite the fact the US installed the Shah in the first place), and lets not forget the will they/won't they make it contrivance at the end (just in the nick of time), or Ben Affleck casting himself as a Mexican just because..... At least with TDZ they don't paint themselves out to be whiter than white.

Really? I didn't get that feeling at all. True, it was not critical of the US but I don't remember getting the impression that it was against Iran. Maybe only that the guards in the airport were 'stupid' enough to be conned by those comic strips. The end was a bit contrived but it's a film...

What I got from Zero Dark Thirty was basically a bunch of people fighting the good fight but while being assholes, making mistakes, abusing people etc. For me the audio of the victims of 9/11 basically justified what was about to follow during the rest of the film.

You really think Skyfall is that good? I enjoyed it, but given Bond manages to break into Ms house early on it does kind of make you wonder why Silva bothered with the costly hi-jinks (after all it's not like he's attempting world domination or anything). Better than Quality of Sausages for sure, but not as good as Casino Royale in my view. Empty train (bar driver) during the day was kind of hinky as well.

I think James Bond has already proved his permanence and Skyfall is easily one of the top 5 in the franchise. James Bond is the embodiment of our notions of post-colonial masculinity: a daredevil global policeman with a quick wit, impeccable body, a way with women, and a stomach for alcohol. In fact, the Craig film have humanized him by making him deal with loss and reckon with his troubled past, thus adding something to relate to on top of the fantasy. Until either that outmoded standard changes or (god forbid) society provides an concrete outlet for that sort of escapism, James Bond is here to stay.

Taken as a full package, I agree that Skyfall's screenplay fell a little bit flat, especially since Bond's dialogue consisted almost entirely of banter, but I thought Casino Royale's extended epilogue in Venice felt tacked on, too. I don't see how anyone can say the cinematography wasn't incredible, unless you're defining it differently than I do. The Silhouette fight, the Scotland scenes, the abandoned city... The film is full of jaw-dropping scenes, impeccably constructed. Roger Deakins is simply a master of his craft.

Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish

I read somewhere on another site about how the year Titanic came out and actually got nominated for Oscars was the highest watched Oscars to date, with the author simply stating "Funny enough when you nominate a movie that every one has actually seen, you get more people watching your award show". I'm not about to suggest the awards should be a popularity contest, but they really do just go for bait movies year after year. If you want an Oscar, do a period piece and release it after September. Bonus points for getting a character actor to play the role he's really good at playing.

While I agree with everything you've said, it doesn't make sense to just ignore the Oscars, to me. This isn't the Spike Awards we're talking about here. A lot of people's careers are defined by these awards, both in terms of public opinion and appeal within the industry (I mean, shit, Nic Cage still gets work!). They need to be criticized. We can't just write them off.

The Academy seemed to play it safe this year. The only real surprise is The Hobbit not winning a single Oscar. Much as I liked Life of Pi, Visual Effects really should have gone to Jackson and his crew.

Ah well, Paperman won best Animated Short Film, so all's right with the world.

Not surprised by The Hobbit at all, it took three movies last time for them to recognize the LOTR. I disagree with the idea of the Visual Effects going to Jackson, some of them looked absolutely muck. Example, I saw the movie in 24fps 3D, there was a scene in the goblin kingdom where the cast are on a platform bridge which falls down a shaft and gets stuck before it breaks and they fall again. That entire scene looked horrible. It looked like everything in it was entirely CG and that they went as far as to CG the actors as CG models too.

I don't see how anyone can say the cinematography wasn't incredible, unless you're defining it differently than I do. The Silhouette fight, the Scotland scenes, the abandoned city... The film is full of jaw-dropping scenes, impeccably constructed. Roger Deakins is simply a master of his craft.

Oh I'm not saying it isn't good I just think its not totally beautiful like Life Of Pi and I thought it does a thing that annoys me in most modern films do really boring composition like the directors only seem to know a few rules of composition. Life Of Pi I thought just had everything perfect the lighting, the look of the movie and the composition just really added to the feel of the movie. With Skyfall there was many beautiful bits but most of the movie was a little tired to be honest.

Oh I'm not saying it isn't good I just think its not totally beautiful like Life Of Pi and I thought it does a thing that annoys me in most modern films do really boring composition like the directors only seem to know a few rules of composition. Life Of Pi I thought just had everything perfect the lighting, the look of the movie and the composition just really added to the feel of the movie. With Skyfall there was many beautiful bits but most of the movie was a little tired to be honest.

I'd argue that the proliferation of "found footage" films has turned the rules of film-making on its head, because we don't have any precedent for that kind of film-making. It breaks all the standards. Not necessarily for the better, but it has heralded a significant shift towards hand-held shots and shakiness and imperfection.

I didn't say that Life of Pi wasn't visually gorgeous (though some of the animals tested my disbelief, and once it's broken it's not coming back) but so much of that can be done in post-production that I can't help but feel cheated. Traditional cinematography doesn't have carte blanche to paint over mistakes; they couldn't just say "Fuck it, we'll fix it in post-production" in Skyfall.

I think James Bond has already proved his permanence and Skyfall is easily one of the top 5 in the franchise. James Bond is the embodiment of our notions of post-colonial masculinity: a daredevil global policeman with a quick wit, impeccable body, a way with women, and a stomach for alcohol. In fact, the Craig film have humanized him by making him deal with loss and reckon with his troubled past, thus adding something to relate to on top of the fantasy. Until either that outmoded standard changes or (god forbid) society provides an concrete outlet for that sort of escapism, James Bond is here to stay.

Taken as a full package, I agree that Skyfall's screenplay fell a little bit flat, especially since Bond's dialogue consisted almost entirely of banter, but I thought Casino Royale's extended epilogue in Venice felt tacked on, too. I don't see how anyone can say the cinematography wasn't incredible, unless you're defining it differently than I do. The Silhouette fight, the Scotland scenes, the abandoned city... The film is full of jaw-dropping scenes, impeccably constructed. Roger Deakins is simply a master of his craft.

I'm not arguing about the cinematography (I think Deakins was robbed), or where it falls in the Bond stable, I just don't think it's all that as a movie in terms of itself. There's some real unnecessary cheesy backslapping callbacks in Skyfall (the Roger Moore moment in the pit, the ejector seat & the Aston itself) that are too self referential for their own good. The film should stand on it's own merits, not on the shoulder of its predecessors, or presume audience familiarity.

Originally Posted by kataras

Really? I didn't get that feeling at all. True, it was not critical of the US but I don't remember getting the impression that it was against Iran. Maybe only that the guards in the airport were 'stupid' enough to be conned by those comic strips. The end was a bit contrived but it's a film...

Iran is the US bogey man and has been for years. There was no attempt made to humanize them and every attempt made to paint the revolutionaries as oppressors. I'm not saying holding the Embassy staff was right, but the Iranians were of the view that the US might try and reinstall the Shah again like they did in the 1950s.

What I got from Zero Dark Thirty was basically a bunch of people fighting the good fight but while being assholes, making mistakes, abusing people etc. For me the audio of the victims of 9/11 basically justified what was about to follow during the rest of the film.

I think they key difference is, the film doesn't shy away from some of the more questionable things that happened and more importantly it leaves it up to you the viewer to arrive at your own conclusions as to how you feel about those things. It wasn't jingoistic or celebratory, it was a sober film in terms of the man hunt and how it concluded.